International Trends in Government Accounting
Pawan Adhikari Pawan.Adhikari@hibo.no and Frode Mellemvik Bodø Graduate School of Business Bodø University College, 8049 Bodø, Norway
There is no standardized global framework for the adoption and implementation of accrual government accounting. This has lead to a questioning of the consistency and comparability of financial statements prepared and presented in different jurisdictions. Two approaches are widespread which deal with the issue of financial consistency and comparability across nations and organizations; the accounting approach and the statistical approach. Whilst the former uses accounting standards for the preparation and presentation of general purpose financial statements, the later emphasizes the statistical bases for producing accounting information for economic analysis and policy making. Many countries have adopted both approaches providing widely different financial measurements. This seems not to be an effective way of using resources. However, there are some promising bridges between them in applying and requiring consistent financial information. Harmonizing these two systems into a single set of government reports is a significant issue in international issue in public sector accounting.
The last three decades have witnessed substantial efforts to re-invent the public sector around the world. Public sector reform ideas, which started more as a political and ideological phenomenon such ‘Thatcherism' (in the UK), 'Reagonomics' (in the USA), and 'Rodgernomics' (in New Zealand) are becoming a reality (Broadbent and Guthrie, 1992). Collectively these public sector reform ideas have been referred to as ‘New Public Management’ (Hood, 1995; Guthrie et al., 1998, 1999 and 2005). Couched in the language of economic rationalism or neo-liberalism, new public management aims to replace the Weberian approach to public administration with a management model, which is used in private enterprises (Hood, 1995; Carlin, 2006).
International Journal on Governmental Financial Management – 2008
Connolly and Hyndman (2006) state that new public management reforms underpin six core elements in public sector governance: privatization, marketization, decentralization, output orientation, quality systems, and intensity of implementation. A primary goal is to boost efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, and accountability in public service delivery and resource management. This has led governments to introduce cost improvement programs, performance indicators, financial management information systems, financial targets, delegated budgets and resource allocation rules (Arrington and Watkins, 2007; Pettersen, 1999; Groot, 1999). Consequently, government agencies have been transformed into competitive business units, and citizens have become customers (Chan, 2003). OECD (2005) claims that contemporary governments in most OECD countries are more efficient, more transparent, and more focused on performance than 20 years ago. Business like governments or entrepreneur governments often use private sector financial management techniques (Chan, 2003). Thus accounting reorientation has been part of new public management reforms in several countries. Accrual accounting is probably the most visible phenomena within this accounting reorientation, referred to as ‘New Public Financial Management’ (Guthrie et al., 1998, 1999 and 2005; Lapsley, 1999). However, the number of governments which have actually adopted accrual accounting is relatively modest. Wynne (2007) lists only nine countries which had actually taken this step and, although the IPSAS Board lists approximately 70 countries which have agreed to move towards accrual accounting, only five of these are “Governments that already apply full accrual accounting standards and apply accounting standards that are broadly consistent with IPSAS requirements” (IFAC, 2007b, page 4). In addition, studies have shown that the implementation of new financial public management, particularly the adoption of accrual accounting has not been uniform nor pursued with discernible coordination (Guthrie et al., 1998, 1999 and 2005). The types and degrees of accrual accounting vary significantly from government to government. Moreover, while some countries have adopted accrual accounting reforms at their central governments, others have embarked on reforms at local levels and within government agencies. There is no standardized global framework for the adoption and implementation of accrual government accounting. This has lead to a questioning of the consistency and comparability of financial statements prepared and presented in different jurisdictions. Two approaches are widespread, which deal with the issue of financial consistency and comparability across nations and organizations; the accounting approach and the statistical approach. Whilst the former uses accounting standards for the preparation and presentation of general purpose financial statements, the later emphasizes the statistical bases for producing accounting information for economic analysis and policy making. With the statistical approach, the IMF’s Government Financial Statistical Manual (GFS Manual) is designed exclusively for the use of governments. All governments are required to submit annual financial returns, or GFS tables, to the IMF in line with the GFS Manual. Although it is accepted that not all governments, and especially those of developing countries, will not be able to apply the accrual aspects of the 2001 manual (IMF, 2001). Many countries
40 International Journal on Governmental Financial Management – 2008
have adopted both approaches providing widely different financial measurements. This seems not be an efficient way of using resources. There are several conflicting areas between these two approaches and consequently tensions between them. However, there are some promising bridges between these two approaches in applying and requiring consistent financial information. Harmonizing these two systems into a single set of government reports is a significant international issue in international public sector accounting. The aim of this paper is to reflect international trends in government accounting by describing ongoing endeavours to harmonize the accounting and statistical approaches to financial reporting. In doing so, the paper reflects similarities and differences in these two approaches and progress made in achieving convergence between them in recent years. The paper proceeds as follows. The next section outlines the emergence of accrual accounting in the public sector. The following two sections provide descriptions of the accounting and the statistical bases of accounting with reference to the IPSASs and the GFS Manual respectively. Ongoing attempts to harmonize these two bases of accounting are then discussed in the section before the conclusion.
Evolution and Proliferation of Accrual Accounting
An aspect of new public management reforms is the move from cash to accrual accounting. Cash and accrual accounting have different principles for recognizing, recording and presenting financial information. While accrual accounting aims to recognize transactions and other events when the associated goods or services are used, cash accounting records transactions at the time cash is exchanged. Financial statements prepared and presented under the accrual basis of accounting include the statement of financial position, the statement of financial performance, the cash flow statement and the statement of change in net assets/equity (IFAC, 2007a). A statement of cash receipts and payments is the primary financial report under the cash basis, although many governments also provide a balance sheet including financial assets (for example, bank balances) and liabilities (for example, debts). Traditionally, governments have also provided detailed comparisons of actual receipts and payments with their agreed annual budget. Accrual accounting has long been the generally accepted accounting basis for the private sector, whilst governments’ financial statements aimed to provide evidence of budgetary compliance. The cash basis of accounting was used by governments to discharge their accountability to parliament by showing that no money had been collected nor spent except in ways and amounts approved by parliament (Barton, 2007). With the rise of new public management, accrual accounting has been included as part of these reforms in at least some developed countries. The introduction of accrual accounting may be considered necessary to realize the potential benefits of new public management (FEE, 2006). Carlin (2005) outlines the supposed superiority of accrual accounting and reporting compared to
International Journal on Governmental Financial Management – 2008 41
cash in three related themes. Firstly, the adoption of accrual accounting enhances transparency and accountability both externally and internally. Next, accrual accounting leads to greater organizational performance and outputs though improved resource allocation. And, lastly accrual accounting allows public entities to identify full costs of their activities, which is pivotal to ensure greater efficiency. In contrast, others (for example, Connolly and Hyndman (2006) and Mellett et al., (2007)) have found that these presumed benefits have not been realized in practice. The current moves towards accrual accounting, which began to take place in the late 1980s, primarily in Australia and New Zealand, is now claimed to be a global trend (although it has been used in some significant public sector jurisdictions for at least 150 years (Wynne, 2007)). Presently, more than half of the OECD member countries use some form of accrual accounting in their different administrative hierarchies (Matheson, 2002). Although the actual level of implementation, in central government ministries at least, has been relatively modest. Accrual accounting is also being introduced in some international organizations. The European Commission has been developing its general purpose financial statements on the accrual basis since 2005 (FEE, 2006). The UN aims to practice a full fledged accrual based system by 2010 (PWC, 2006). Other international organizations such as the OECD, IFAC, NATO and Interpol are in the process of implementing the accrual basis International Public Sector Accounting Standards. The main international frameworks for the statistical approaches to accounting, including the UN’s 1993 System of National Accounts, the European System of Accounts 95 and the IMF GFS Manual, have, in recent years, also adopted the accrual basis. What is conspicuous, however, is the existence of multiple intermediary degrees of accrual accounting across countries and organizations. Chan (2003) categorizes these diversified forms of accrual accounting into four sub-groups; mild, moderate, strong and radical accrual. With mild accrual only short-term financial assets and liabilities are disclosed. Moderate accrual includes both the short term and long term financial assets and liabilities (and has actually been adopted by many governments broadly characterised as adopting the cash basis). In addition to short and long term assets and liabilities, strong accrual includes various categories of capital assets on the balance sheet. Radical accruals also reports legislated entitlement benefits as liabilities (for example, the cost of future state pensions). Countries have also adopted different methods for valuing assets ranging from original cost to value in use. The adoption of these varying degrees of accrual accounting has resulted in heterogeneity and inconsistency in the preparation and presentation of financial statements between jurisdictions. At the national government level, there are two approaches which aim to reduce these ambiguities in financial reporting; the accounting approach and the statistical approach. The former consists of accounting standards, particularly International Public Sector Accounting Standards. The statistical approach is dominated by the IMF’s GFS Manual. The existence of these two systems has created tensions and questions about which sets of figures to accept and use, especially for countries preparing financial statements by
42 International Journal on Governmental Financial Management – 2008
applying both approaches. In recent years, academicians, professional accountants and users have been looking at the possible convergence between these two approaches to accrual accounting. An International Task Force on the Harmonization of Public Sector Accounting (TFHPSA) has been the forum to address this convergence. An Accounting Approach to Harmonizing Government Accounting Practices Globalization is credited with, among other things, the shrinking of the world and the interdependence of major national economies (Barrett et al., 2005). This is striking also in the government sector because governments today are not confined within their specified territories. In fact, they have penetrated the global capital markets by issuing large debts and holding significant equity investments. Their transactions are exerting an immediate and substantial impact on multiple markets simultaneously. Additional to preparing and presenting reliable and transparent accounting reports for sound decision making, governments are therefore forced to reduce the prevailing diversities and inconsistencies in accounting. These weaken the comparability of government financial information and make the interpretation of financial statements difficult for holders of government debt instruments (Alijarde, 2003). Public sector accounting standards are often envisaged as a panacea in dealing with these perceived diversities in financial reporting. Some countries, for instance, Australia and New Zealand, have adopted a sector neutral approach and imposed IFRSs both for private and public entities (Barton, 2007). There is however a growing interest on International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSASs), especially after the WTO’s Singapore declaration in 1996, which acknowledged IFAC as the ‘setters of international standards for the accounting profession’ (Humphrey et al., 2006). The International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) (formerly the Public Sector Committee) is the mandated body for issuing IPSASs under the auspicious of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). The IPSASB has issued 26 accrual basis IPSASs and a comprehensive cash basis IPSAS. IPSASs specify criteria to recognize, measure, present and disclose transactions and events in general purpose financial statements tailored to meet the demand of users that are unable to ask for special information, for instance, taxpayers, members of legislature, creditors, suppliers, the media and employees (IFAC, 2007a). The accrual basis IPSASs are to a large extent based on the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs). They interpret the relevant IFRSs for the public sector, but also deal with those issues that are either not addressed in the existing IFRSs or those issues for which there is no IFRSs. The purpose of the cash basis IPSAS, i.e. ‘Financial Reporting under the Cash Basis of Accounting’, is to improve the quality of cash statements, primarily the statements of cash receipts and payments. The introduction of the cash basis IPSAS was seen as “an important step forward in improving the consistency and comparability of financial reporting under the cash basis of accounting” (Cash Basis IPSAS page 1). However, the IPSASB also
International Journal on Governmental Financial Management – 2008 43
encourages governments to progress to the accrual basis of accounting. In addition to cash disclosures the cash IPSAS therefore encourages public sector entities to disclose voluntarily accrual-based information about assets and liabilities (paragraph 2.1.34 of the Cash IPSAS). Some of the benefits of IPSASs include the application of the consistence and coherent financial reporting systems, both within a country and between countries, and the potential harmonization of financial reporting across jurisdictions (Adhemar, 2006). However, these attributes are undermined by the fact that so few governments have actually adopted the standards that are broadly consistent with IPSAS (IFAC, 2007b: page 4). According to Chan (2005), developing countries are the primary potential users of IPSASs. The major resource suppliers to developing nations such as the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and the UN have endorsed IPSASs for use in accounting for the financial assistance they offer. Reports on the accounting and auditing gap assessment, prepared by the World Bank for the South Asian countries, for instance, show that all South Asian countries (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka) are either making or are committed to make a transition towards IPSASs, although it is likely that they will only adopt accrual accounting within the long term (Subramanian, 2007). In addition to developing countries, a few other countries that have already issued accounting standards for their public entities are considering IPSASs an input in the development of new standards or in the revision of existing standards in recent years (Dupuis et al., 2006). Apart from issuing IPSASs and promoting convergence of IPSASs with IFRSs, the IPSASB is involved with two other programmes in co-operation with a number of national standards setters and international organizations. One of these includes the development of a public sector accounting conceptual framework. The framework that is anticipated to be completed by 2011 aims at aligning public sector accounting standards in many countries with IPSASs (IPSASB, 2006). The second programme is related to harmonizing IPSASs and the statistical bases of financial reporting, especially the IMF’s GFS Manual. The harmonization between these two bases of accounting is necessary to minimize the duplication of efforts in producing information for different reporting approaches and improving the reliability of accounting information. A Statistical Approach to Producing Government Accounting Information The IMF's Government Financial Statistics Manual (GFS Manual 2001) describes a statistical model for developing and presenting government financial information (IMF, 2001). The GFS Manual is actually the lynchpin of international statistical standards (Dublin, 2006). The manual is largely harmonized with other macroeconomic statistical systems including the UN’s 1993 System of National Accounts (1993 SNA): 1993 Balance of Payments Manual, fifth edition: the European System of Accounts 1995 (ESA 95): and the Monitory and Financial Statistics Manual (2000) (Laliberte, 2004). Additionally, the GFS Manual has adopted a number of interrelated statements from the 1993 SNA that integrate flows and stocks.
44 International Journal on Governmental Financial Management – 2008
The IMF emphasizes the importance of the GFS Manual in terms of ensuring accountability and transparency in government finances, operations and oversight. The manual provides guidance on compiling detailed fiscal statistics on the general government sector and analyzing the impacts of the government’s operations on other sectors of the economy. The fiscal statistics required by the GFS Manual basically demonstrate resource mobilization, monetary condition, national indebtedness, the level of tax, tariff protection and the social safety net (IMF, 2001). Such statistics are necessary to delineate a government’s overall contribution to aggregate national demand, investment, and saving. Moreover, they can also be used to report and evaluate the effectiveness of a government’s spending, the sustainability of fiscal policies, net debt, net wealth and contingent claims against governments. The GFS Manual 2001 updates the earlier manual (1986 GFS Manual) in five main areas; coverage, basis of recording, valuation, balance sheet and integration of flows and stocks. The GFS Manual 2001 defines the general government sector, which is its main coverage, on the basis of institutional units analogous to that used in the 1993 SNA. In contrast, the 1986 GFS Manual adopted a functional basis and incorporates the transactions of any unit within the boarder public sector performing a function of government. While the 1986 GFS Manual is developed on the cash basis, the GFS Manual 2001 adopts the accrual basis. The GFS Manual 2001 uses current market prices for the valuation of assets, liabilities, net worth and other economic flows. The 1986 GFS Manual differs in the way that debt securities are to be valued; the amounts which the government is obligated to pay when the debts mature. Such amounts often vary from the current market value. Another divergence between the two manuals exists on the presentation of the balance sheet. The GFS Manual 2001 requires the presentation of a more comprehensive balance sheet, which should include all financial assets, non-financial assets, liabilities, and net worth. In contrast, the 1986 Manual incorporates only the stocks of certain debt liabilities onto the balance sheet. The GFS Manual 2001 therefore permits governments to integrate their flows and stocks and reconcile variations between the opening and closing balance sheets, which are not possible from the approach outlined in the 1986 GFS Manual without the collection of additional information. The analytical frameworks and balancing items required by the GFS Manual 2001 are concerned with providing a range of possibilities on fiscal liquidity and sustainability issues. The manual is built upon four analytical statements: statement of government operations, statement of other economic flows, balance sheet, and statement of sources and uses of cash. The statement of government operations includes summary information on all transactions during an accounting period and derives analytical balances from this information. The second statement, i.e. the statement of other economic flows, portrays changes in net worth. The balance sheet presents the stocks of assets, liabilities and net worth at the beginning and the end of the fiscal year. The last statement, i.e. the statement
International Journal on Governmental Financial Management – 2008 45
of sources and uses of cash, is meant to reflect cash flows from operations and other transactions related to assets and liabilities. Incorporated in these four statements, the main balancing items of the GFS Manual 2001 are net operating balance, net lending/borrowing, and net worth. The net operating balance provides a summary of the effects of a government’s transactions on net worth, which is derived by subtracting revenues from expenses. Another balancing item, i.e. net lending/ borrowing is calculated by deducting the net acquisition of nonfinancial assets from the net operating balance. The balance of net lending/borrowing reflects the extent to which governments either provide financial resources to the other sectors of the economy and the rest of the world (net lending) or consume resources produced by the other sectors (net borrowing) (Bjorgvinsson, 2004). The final item, net worth, is meant to show a variation between governments' total assets and total liabilities (although, like other systems, the right to tax, the largest asset of almost all governments, is ignored). These balancing items along with the analytical frameworks used in the GFS Manual 2001 show that the later is more focused on an economic sector rather than an entity which is the focus for accounting standards.
Harmonization of the Accounting and Statistical Bases of Accounting
As discussed above, the IPSASs and IFRSs are the accounting approaches to financial reporting. The accounting approaches are intended to serve those users, who are not in a position to express their specific needs, by providing information in a format and context they can best understand (DiPiazza et al., 2006). The statistical approach presents another way of financial reporting that enable policymakers and analysts to study the economic and financial developments in the general government sector or the public sector in a consistent and systematic manner (IFAC, 2005). The 1993 System of National Accounts (1993 SNA) - produced jointly by the UN, IMF, the European Commission, the OECD and the World Bank - is the overarching model for macroeconomic statistics. The 1993 SNA provides a frame for the detailed description of the total national economy and its components including the general government sector and its relations with other sectors and economies. Other internationally acknowledged statistical models, for instance, the European System of Accounts (ESA 95) and the GFS Manual 2001 are largely consistent with the 1993 SNA. The 1993 SNA is being updated with the objective of publishing a revision in 2008. The accounting and statistical bases for reporting financial information possess a number of similarities as well as differences. They offer some promising bridges as they represent a collective effort by international organizations to contribute both to the accounting profession and economic growth and development of a nation. Each of these systems provides a distinct perspective on the same underlying economic realities (Laliberte, 2004). The national accounts, for instance, portray a macro reading of the economic activities of entities, which are presented in accounting statements at the micro level. While accounting
46 International Journal on Governmental Financial Management – 2008
data provides a basis for the production of national accounts, the aggregated statistics envisage the economic events, which are to be measured by accounting statements. These two bases of accounting have also many similarities in the recognition and measurement of financial information due to the adoption of accrual principles, and in some cases have a similar type of report structure (IFAC, 2005). Despite some similarities, the two systems of accounting can be differentiated substantially in terms of objectives and scope (Laliberte, 2004). Accountability and decision making are the primary objectives of accounting statements. On the other hand, the objective of the statistical reporting bases is to provide economic data by describing the behavior of all the economic units of a national economy. The reporting unit for the statistical guidelines is defined by an economic sector, which consists of an institutional entity or a group of entities (Dupuis et al., 2006). In contrast, the accounting statements incorporate and report the financial results of individual entities and collections of such entities. While the statistical bases are top down the accounting approaches are bottom up starting with individual entities. Moreover, these two bases of accounting can also be differentiated on the basis of ownership relationships and recognition and measurement of assets, liabilities and net equity (IFAC, 2005). Technological and methodological differences are however envisaged not only between the accounting and statistical approaches but also among the statistical bases, particularly between the GFS Manual 2001 and the other statistical approaches, despite attempts at harmonization. The GFS Manual, for instance, is more focused on fiscal analysis and deals with statistics related to financial operations, financial position and liquidity situation within the general government sector. The manual addresses financial transactions related to taxing, spending, borrowing and lending. In contrast, the other statistical bases cover the entire public sector. They are designed for economic analysis and therefore demonstrate the balance of payments and monetary and financial statistics, which report the production and consumption of goods and services. Table 1 summarizes the existing differences between the GFS Manual and the other statistical bases. Table 1. Differences between the GFS Manual and the Other Statistical Bases Areas Objective Coverage Design
The GFS Manual The 1993 SNA, ESA 95 and the Other Statistical Bases (cover the Economic analysis (cover the the general broader public sector). Production and consumption of goods and services. For the balance of payments and monetary and financial statistics.
Fiscal analysis performance of government sector). Taxing, spending, borrowing and lending For statistics related to the financial operations, financial position and liquidity situation.
International Journal on Governmental Financial Management – 2008
The variations between the GFS Manual and the other statistical bases, and accounting bases for financial reporting have confused the users of financial reports (IFAC, 2005). The demand for convergence between these reporting systems is therefore increasing. It is suggested that ‘convergence would minimize costly duplication of efforts in producing information for different reporting bases’ (IFAC, 2005, Page 15). In that way, it could offer an efficient way of using resources. Additionally, it is seen that the reports produced under the different bases are purported to reflect the same economic phenomena using accrual principles but with different results. Convergence is therefore emphasized also to improve the reliability of the information. The International Task Force on Harmonization of Public Sector Accounting (TFHPSA) is in operation since 2003 in order to address this issue of achieving convergence. The task force consists of senior statisticians and public sector accountants from various countries, and representatives of international and regions agencies (European Central bank, Eurostat, IMF, IFAC-IPSASB, OECD and World Bank). It is tasked with examining ways of minimizing unnecessary differences between the accounting and statistical approaches to financial reporting (IFAC, 2005). The task force has also been the forum for making recommendations to various groups including the IPSASB and IMF involved in providing inputs to the update of the System of National Accounts 1993 (1993 SNA) by 2008. Chaired by the IMF, the task force operates on the basis of two working groups (WGs). WG I, led by the IPSASB, deals with the harmonization issues between the accounting and statistical standards, particularly between the IPSASs and the GFS Manaul 2001. It also monitors the convergence activities of international accounting and statistical bodies responsible for setting financial reporting requirements. WG II, on the other hand, focuses on issues related to the harmonization of the GFS Manual 2001 and the 1993 SNA/ESA95. The group, which is chaired by the OECD, also provides inputs to the revision of the 1993 SNA (IFAC, 2005). The WGI has in recent years made a number of recommendations for achieving convergence between the accounting and statistical approaches to reporting financial information. The primary one is concerned with the development of IPSASs that allow disclosure of information about the general government sector (as defined in the statistical approaches) in whole of government general purpose financial statements (IFAC, 2005). Another recommendation is the development or amendment of IPSASs that will require or allow the adoption of current values in IPSASs. Moreover, the working group has demonstrated the need for formulating a long term project on reporting financial performance that integrates the distinction between transactions and other economic flows adopted by the statistical approaches. At the same time, the working group has also envisaged some differences, which may not be overcome in the longer term due to the different objectives and focuses of the accounting and statistical financial reporting bases. The major issues in which these differences are identified include; accounting for controlled, determination of net assets/equity and contributions from owners, tax effect
48 International Journal on Governmental Financial Management – 2008
accounting, investment in associates, biological assets and formats and presentation of the statement of financial performance, among others. In the longer term it is therefore emphasized to develop a reconciliation statement to deal with these differences and to illustrate the relationship between accounting and statistical reporting bases (IFAC, 2005).
The adoption of accrual accounting has often been integral to New Public Management reforms over the past few decades. This transition towards accrual accounting has been the subject of considerable debate drawing arguments both in support for and against the project. There is however a great variation in the approaches adopted for accrual accounting, even in the few countries which have implemented such reforms. This has led to ambiguities in the comprehension of financial statements between governments. IFAC has been exhorting the governments to consider the use of IPSASs as a possible remedy to these variations in financial reporting. In contrast, a number of organizations are preparing and promoting statistical approaches, which emphasise macroeconomic developments in the government sector. The IMF presents the GFS Manual 2001, as a basis of financial reporting by governments. While there are many similarities, there are also many differences and tensions between these approaches to financial reporting. Many governments have in fact adopted both the systems of reporting. In recent years, the issue of achieving convergence between the accounting and statistical approaches to reporting has gained increased international attention. The TFHPSA is actively seeking convergence between the accounting and statistical approaches and also between the different statistical bases. Ongoing reforms and concerns on achieving convergence have eventually made public sector accounting an international issue and an emerging arena for further research.
International Journal on Governmental Financial Management – 2008
Adhemar, P. (2006). International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB), PowerPoint Presentation at the Sixth Annual OECD Public Sector Accruals Symposium, Paris, 6-7 March 2006. Alijarde, I., Julve, V. and Lopez, B. (2003). The Harmonization of Governmental Financial Reporting: The Roles of the IPSASs, Presented at CIGAR 9th CIGAR Conference, Bodø, Norway, June 13th-14th. Arrington, C.E. and Watkins, A. (2007). Accounting, New Public Management and American Politics: Theoretical Insights into the National Performance Review, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 18, pp. 33-58. Barrett, M., Cooper, D. and Jamal, K. (2005). Globalization and the Coordinating of Work in Multinational Audits, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 30, pp. 1-24. Barton, A. (2007). Accrual Accounting and Budgeting Systems in Australian Governments, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp 38-50. Bjorgvinsson, J. (2004). Government Finance Statistics Manual 2001, IMF. Broadbent, J. and Guthrie, J. (1992). Changes in the Public Sector: A Review of Recent “Alternative” Accounting Research, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability, Vol.5, No. 2, pp. 3-31. Carlin, T.M. (2005). Debating the Impact of Accrual Accounting and Reporting in the Public Sector, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 21 (3), August, pp. 309-336. Carlin, T.M. (2006). Victoria’s Accrual Output Based Budgeting System-Delivering as Promised? Some Empirical Evidence, Financial Accountability & Management, Vol. 22 (1), February, pp. 1-19. Chan, J. (2003). Changing Roles of Public Financial Management, pp. 101-111, in Bouvaird, T. and Loeffler, E. (eds.), Public Management and Governance, London: Rutledge. Chan, J. (2005). Government Accounting Reform in Developing Countries: Connecting MDG, PRS and IPSAS, Paper presented at the 10th Biennial CIGAR conference, Poitiers, France, May.
International Journal on Governmental Financial Management – 2008
Connolly, C. and Hyndman, N. (2006). The Actual Implementation of Accruals Accounting: Caveats from a Case within the UK Public Sector, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 272-290. DiPiazza, S.,McDonnell, D., Parrett, W., Rake, M., Samyn, F., and Turley, J. (2006). Global Capital Markets and the Global Economy: A Vision from the CEOs of the International Audit Networks. Dublin, K. (2006). 'Using the GFSM 2001 Statistical Framework to Strengthen Fiscal Analysis, PowerPoint Presentation at the Sixth Annual OECD Public Sector Accruals Symposium, Paris, 6-7 March 2006. Dupuis, J.P., Laliberte’, L. and Sutcliffe, P. (2006). Task Force on Harmonization of Public Sector Accounting-Draft Final Report, Paper Presented at the Fifth Meeting of the Task Force on Harmonization of Public Sector Accounting (TFHPSA), Paris, France, March 8-10. FEE. (2006). The New Public Management: A Perspective for Finance Practitioners, December. Groot, T. (1999). Budgetary Reforms in the Non-Profit Sector: A Comparative Analysis of Experiences in Health Care and Higher Education in the Nederlands, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 15, No. 3/4, pp. 353-376. Guthrie, J., Humphey, C. and Olson, O. (1998). Global Warming: Debating International Developments in New Public Financial Management, Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag As. Guthrie, J., Humphey, C. and Olson, O. (1999). Debating Developments in New Public Financial Management: The Limits of Global Theorising and Some New Ways Forward, Financial Accountability & Management, 15 (3) & (4), August/November, 0267-4422. Guthrie, J., Humphrey, C., Jones, L R. and Olson, O. (2005). International Public Financial Management Reform, Information Age Publishing. Hood, C. (1995). The “New Public Management” in the 1980s: Variations on a Theme, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 20, No. 2/3, pp. 93-109. Humphrey, C., Loft, A. and Turley, S. (2006) In Pursuit of Global Regulation: Changing Governance and Accountability Structures at the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC), Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 428-451. Humphrey, C. and Loft, A. (2007). Global Audit Regulation – The Limits of SelfGovernance? Paper Presented at Bodø, 24th September.
International Journal on Governmental Financial Management – 2008 51
IFAC. (2005). International Pubic Sector Accounting Standards (IPSASs) and Statistical Bases of Financial Reporting: An Analysis of Differences and Recommendations for Convergence, NY, USA. IFAC. (2007a). Handbook of International Public Sector Accounting Pronouncements, March. IFAC. (2007b). IPSAS Adoption by Governments, September. IMF. (2001). Government Financial Statistics Manual 200l, IMF Statistics Dept. IPSASB. (2006). Public Sector Conceptual Framework, December. Laliberte, L. (2004). Relationship between Macroeconomic Statistical Guidelines and Accounting Standards, Statistics Dept., IMF. Lapsley, I. (1999). Accounting and the New Public Management: Instruments of Substantive Efficiency or a Rationalized Modernity? Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 15, No. ¾, pp. 201-207. Laughlin, R. and Power, M. (1996). Habermas, Law and Accounting, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 441-65. Matheson, A. (2002). Better Public Sector Governance: The Rationale for Budgeting and Accounting Reforms in Western Nations. OECD Journal on Budgeting, Volume 2/Supplement 1. OECD. (2005). Public Sector Modernization: The Way Forward, Observer, December. Pettersen, I.J. (1999). Accountable Management Reforms: Why the Norwegian Hospital reform Experiment Got Lost in Implementation, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 15, No. 3/4, pp. 377-396. PWC (PriceWaterHouseCopers). (2006). WorldWatch, Issue 1. Robinson, M. (1998). Accrual Accounting and the Efficiency of the Core Public Sector, Financial Accountability & Management, 14 (1), Feb, 0267-4424. Subramanian, P.K. (2007). Public Sector Accounting and Auditing-Benchmarking in South Asia, International Public Sector Bulletin, ACCA, Issue 10. Wynne, A. (2007). Is the Move to Accrual Based Accounting a Real Priority for Public Sector Accounting? Public Fund Digest, Vol. VI, No. 1.
International Journal on Governmental Financial Management – 2008
GOVERNMENT FINANCE STATISTICS IN TURKEY
Prof. Dr. Necdet SAGLAM Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Anadolu University, Turkey email@example.com
The foundation of modern public financial reporting lies in the communication of financial information about the government’s activities to its citizens and their representatives in parliament. This information should refer to the activities of public administrators for the entire state, covering pre-determined periods. This is a key aspect of the accountability of the Government and its administration to parliament and the electorate more widely. It is increasingly a requirement of international obligations as required by, for example, the IMF and the European Union. In Turkey there will be challenges in providing financial information in the required formats. These will include technical, legal, financial data quality and consolidation of financial data, human resources etc. In this study some of these problems are investigated and ideas are offered clear to help the authorities in harmonizing the two systems. The study provides a literature review of Government Finance Statistics and Disclosures in international and local level and interviews with key persons in Turkey. The next section introduces the statistical approaches to financial reporting developed by the UN and IMF. The third section considers the differences between the international public sector accounting standards and this statistical approach. The fourth section considers the approach adopted by Turkish Governments for accounting and financial reporting. The paper ends with a conclusion.
Financial Reporting in Government Sector
The Structure of the Public Sector Government structures are generally more complex than the structures of private sector organisations. Figure 1 illustrates1 common government levels and sectors. Budgeting and accounting methods have generally differed between levels and sectors—for instance,
International Journal on Governmental Financial Management – 2008 53